Voltaire’s letters and cultural confidence

Posted by Guessedworker on Thursday, 17 November 2005 22:22.

It is still strange to my ears to hear how the British economy - three decades ago the “sick man of Europe” – is spoken of as a model the rest of the continent should emulate. It is doubly strange, in fact, since just about any degree of confidence in modern Britain flies in the face of our general experience of daily, abject cultural defeatism. If it isn’t the anguish of Anglican liberals we have to endure, it’s another crazy anti-racism campaign. Or we are bleeding with guilt after a crazed axe murder. Or we are binge drinking into the middle of the night while Old Father Thames is brained on crack. Or record numbers of children are growing up without a father, whilst marriage has become just too tiresome for the modern couple …

The list is long.

Still, when British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw stands up in Strasbourg to tell the European Parliament that “Without significant changes I see little prospect of a deal”, one has to raise a couple of patriotic cheers, however weakly. One has also to acknowledge that, actually, this is nothing knew. Straw is simply sounding the latest charge across some very old battle lines. Our liberalising economic agenda for the EU is all of a piece with Napoleon Bonaparte’s supposed observation that, “L’Angleterre est une nation de boutiquiers.”

In point of fact, if he said that at all he wasn’t being original. He will have bowdlerised a remark by Adam Smith in “The Wealth of Nations”, which was published in 1776 (when the little corporal was but seven years old). Smith, however, wrote of “a nation that is governed by shopkeepers”, which is a rather different matter.

What he meant by this may be gleaned from Voltaire’s still earlier reference to the respectability in England of trade and of being a merchant. The families of the English political class counted many merchants among them. It was an attitude peculiar to the English, among whom the father of the French Enlightenment was living in 1733. That was the year he published Letters Concerning the English Nation (PDF) – the work that appeared in Paris a year later as Lettres philosophiques and is known to us today as Philosophical Letters. In the section On Commerce he wrote:-

Carthage, Venice, and Amsterdam were undoubtedly powerful; but their conduct has been exactly like that of merchants grown rich by traffic, who afterward purchase lands with the dignity of lordship annexed to them. Neither Carthage, Venice, nor Holland have, from a warlike and even conquering beginning, ended in a commercial nation. The English are the only people existing who have done this; they were a long time warriors before they learned to cast accounts. They were entirely ignorant of numbers when they won the battles of Agincourt, Crécy, and Poitiers, and were also ignorant that it was in their power to become cornfactors and woollen–drapers, two things that would certainly turn to much better account. This science alone has rendered the nation at once populous, wealthy, and powerful.

Philosophical Letters was, of course, a critique of the 18th century French social order, effected merely through the power of contrast with English liberty. Voltaire’s praise for the latter, therefore, had no particular need for absolute historical fidelity. He could afford to be superficial. Accordingly, he gave little consideration to the unique means by which a confident, secure liberty arose among the English merchant class and land-owning yeoman farmers.

Safe to say, “this science alone” – the turn to trade - did not render the nation at once populous, wealthy and powerful. An oft-times severed but golden thread of good kingship and wise ministry ran through the two and half centuries from the accession of Henry VII – “that fortunate conqueror and politician” Voltaire called him – and this was the prime, the real cause. By stabilising the English social order and, wherever possible, avoiding costly conflicts abroad wise English kings and ministers could set free their people. The able prospered, and increase attained to the exchequer and the nation as a result.

Voltaire’s blindness to this vivifying, Conservative force is instructive and perhaps somewhat fateful. It was, of course, the foundation of British Conservatism as practised to 1827. One is not going too far in claiming this as the means by which England avoided a 1789, a Robespierre and a march to the Tuilleries. In practise, this nascent Conservatism stabilised the social order and dispensed freedoms sufficient to temper the radicalism of the times.

Something so benign distilled over so long a period couldn’t be heated up like some five minute chicken soup, even if the French ruling class had understood the desirability of it. They didn’t, and France felt the lack of it in the most bloody and fearful way. Voltaire never understood either. His Lettres mentions the word “Tory” once in an entirely different context. For him liberty was to be had by attacking the French social order, and that’s what his countrymen did so thoroughly eleven years after his death.

Conservatism, then, may justly be viewed as the silent political benefactor of the extraordinarily confident, energetic, inventive England that Voltaire admired. The benefaction did not endure. We are all little radicals today. But the gulf between English and continental European politics remains as wide as it ever was. Nobody expected Jack Straw’s demands for reform of the French and German social models to be received warmly.

Neither can one expect our cultural malaise, which we do at least share with the French, to be cured any time soon. We are deep in the final phase of liberalism, and as yet it is not knowable how or to what extent we will survive it ... or whether, as Oswald Spengler wrote in 1918:-

One day the last portrait of Rembrandt and the last bar of Mozart will have ceased to be - though possibly a coloured canvas and a sheet of notes may remain - because the last eye and the last ear accessible to their message will have gone.

As to those, of course, always vibrant and never inconfident fellow-countrymen of ours bidding to make old Oswald’s gloomy prognostication come true, here is what the father of the French Enlightenment had to say about “The Negro”. Let it be noted that it takes a certain cultural confidence to hold to such an uncompromising view.

There are several kinds of negroes. Those of Guinea, Ethiopia, Madagascar and the Indies are all different. The blacks of Guinea and Congo have wool; the others long, shaggy hair. The petty nations of blacks, who have but little commerce with other nations, are strangers to all kind of religious worship. The first degree of stupidity is to think only of the present and of bodily wants. This was the state of several nations, and especially those which inhabited islands. The second degree is to foresee by halves, without being able to form any fixed society; to behold the stars with wonder and amazement; to celebrate certain feasts, to make a general rejoicing on the return of certain seasons, or the appearance of a particular star, without going further or having any distinct positive idea. In this middle state between imbecility and infant reason, many nations have continued for several ages.

Interesting, though, to see that race realism has such a long and noble intellectual pedigree.

Tags: Political Philosophy

Comments:

Posted by Martin Hutchinson on Thu, 17 Nov 2005 23:36 | #

Very nice and enjoyable piece. Blair and Straw aren’t the worst rulers Britain’s ever had, but they are trading off a reputation for economic competence that is now at least 5 years out of date—this will be demonstrated when Brown jacks up taxes. Britain’s lead over France and Germany is vanishing fast, and her economic climate is now far behind well run E. European countries such as Estonia and Slovakia.

Voltaire was by far the most Conservative of the French philosophes, which is why he is not admired today by the Left like Diderot and the odious Rousseau.

Bear in mind that there wasn’t the concept of “Conservative” in 1733; the full philosophy had yet to be invented. Also, British politics was in the middle of its peculiar reversal, whereby Walpole for the Whigs was far more “Conservative” than Bolingbroke for the Tories. The “Craftsman,” if I remember edited by Bolingbroke in 1733, is splendid stuff but not remotely Conservative, more a cross between Radical and Country Party (if you buy Gentleman’s magazines from the peiod you will find lots of Craftsman extracts, full of rhetorical abuse that reads best if roared aloud over a bottle of port.)

The Excise Crisis of 1733 illutsrates it well; Walpole’s Excise Bill was a Conservative measure, which Adam Smith was later to praise, while the opposition to it was orchestrated by Pulteney and could have been written by Cobbett or Hunt.

“Ideals of a Patriot King” was more Conservative, and inspired the Pitts, but Bolingbroke didn’t publish that until 1751. He’d been treasonous in 1715-25, and in 1733 wasn’t all the way back.

Posted by svigor on Thu, 17 Nov 2005 23:42 | #

Guessedworker, you should keep it in mind that it wasn’t until the 1960s that “racism” started being seen as bad, not only be the Jewish establishment liberals but also by other Jews like Ayn Rosenbaum—better known as “Rand.” Further I think it necessary for such a view to be altered with further fortifications, if to protect it from intrusion from all others (above all).

Posted by Al Ross on Fri, 18 Nov 2005 00:38 | #

Svigor is, of course, correct and it is apposite that the headline should feature Voltaire who, in his ‘Dictionaire Philosophique’, made this impressively succinct observation : “You will only find in the Jews an ignorant and barbarous people, who for a long time have joined the most sordid avarice to the most detestable superstition and to the most invincible hatred of all peoples which tolerate and enrich them.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 18 Nov 2005 05:49 | #

“it wasn’t until the 1960s that ‘racism’ started being seen as bad” (—Svigor)

“Racism” and “racist” are propaganda terms, Marxist slogan-words, which can’t be used without implicitly endorsing the view that there are no differences between races—indeed, endorsing the view that there aren’t even races, let alone differences between them—and the view that to hope for the continuation of what one (deludedly, in the eyes of Marxists) calls one’s race—even while also wishing every other race well—is evil that is so impermissible, so forbidden, so unmentionable, it shouldn’t be allowed to speak. Since the word can’t be used without implicitly endorsing those things, it can’t very well be used by someone who’s not a Marxist or Marxist dupe. It therefore simply has no place in the vocabulary of straight-thinking normal people; has no coherent meaning for normal people. That Svigor also sees it that way is suggested—correct me if I’m wrong—by his putting the word in quotes.

Posted by Svigor on Fri, 18 Nov 2005 06:26 | #

Look mate, you need to stop spoofing under my name and find your own handle. Try and grow up a bit.

Posted by Svigor on Fri, 18 Nov 2005 06:29 | #

Yes Scroob, I agree with your assessment, but my skin has thickened over time and I self-identify as a racist. I prefer to neutering the term to avoiding or disputing it.

Posted by Kubilai on Fri, 18 Nov 2005 14:48 | #

Sorry for this off topic post, however I felt it important and it goes towards EGI. A report out of Canada states…

Immigrant youth should keep ethnicity, study says

Toronto — Countries would be better off avoiding a melting-pot style of immigration policy and should instead embrace the cultural mosaic seen in Canada, a new study about immigrant youth says.

The report, which studied 13 countries, suggests that the ideal situation is for young immigrants to be proud of both their ethnic culture and new country.

Prof. John Berry of Queen’s University said immigrant youth can better handle discrimination…

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20051116.wimmig116/CommentStory/National/

Nothing new there from Canada the great and the good and the suicidal. The interesting part is this comment from a reader. Notice the name…

E Hong from Vancouver, Canada writes: This study demonstrates something we already know - that cultural

assimilation, aka melting pot, has never worked, either in Canada or worldwide.
Statements like “the natural culture of real canadians born here” and

“Canada was once a proud country with a well respected identity” are

based on false history and are white-centric. All Canadians, save for

the First Nations, are immigrants or descendants of immigrants. Canada

has never been a homogeneous country, even when most of its immigrants

were not obviously visible minorities (think Irish, Italians, Ukrainians, French), nor should it strive to be .

Posted Nov. 17, 2005 at 11:26 AM EST

Mr. Hong is clueless about Canada’s immigration policies, which have never been “melting pot” during the time his people have been immigrating. It still didn’t stop him from pointing out that he prefers to think of himself as Chinese, probably Hong Kong, all the while throwing in a few anti-white quips.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 18 Nov 2005 15:14 | #

The way to respond to a Chinaman like that is to propose doing the same thing to his ancestral homeland. See him suddenly start to stutter and stammer as he looks for an argument.
______
Moratorium-plus-Repatriation!

Posted by Desmond Jones on Fri, 18 Nov 2005 19:19 | #

GW, The French revolution was a nationalist movement. Reading Robspierre’s notion of virtue, sacrifice of the individual to the furtherance of the country and the French people, reads, unsurprisingly, like the philosophy of the Third Reich. In fact, some historians link Robespierre to Gobineau to Chamberlain to Hitler. The nationalist movement worked to throw off Catholic corporatism and David Bell of Cambridge “notes a singular hatred of England intensifying during the Seven Years’ War (1755-1763), noting examples in which English people were uniformly damned as barbarians while other national enmities, such as the war with Austria, remained directed toward monarchs and emperors.” The fulmination of French nationalism rose from ethnic nepotism. France uniting to battle the outgrop threat from England and the Catholic Church/French aristocracy.

England avoided the carnage in France, arguably, because of the barren bellies of Henry’s Tudor Queens. English nationalism was born with Henry’s dispensing with the influence of Roman Catholic Popery.

In addition, how do you view Pitt’s (a tyrant like Lincoln?)curtailing of Habeus Corpus and “The Gagging Acts”. Is it really dispensation of freedoms sufficient to quell radical times or is it tyranny? (Sceptic, not cynic

Posted by Desmond Jones on Fri, 18 Nov 2005 19:37 | #

It appears there’s life in the old girl yet. From the [url=“http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1132181413791&call_pageid=970599109774&col=Columnist969907626423&DPL=IvsNDS/7ChAX&tacodalogin=yes”]Red
Star[/url]
“With a winter election looming and Liberals desperate to hold the ethnic vote, Immigration Minister Joe Volpe is telling fanciful stories about the success of immigrants that just don’t fit the facts. Volpe, who also happens to be Paul Martin’s Ontario political boss, is promoting the notions that new arrivals are doing rather well and that Canada is ready to throw its doors open to a swelling new crowd.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Documents circulating through select government departments and obtained by the Star reveal disturbing results suggesting a ruling party concerned more with national interests than electoral advantage would put immigration increases on hold.”

In other news from Hogtown, a mother tells her son, who was arrested for sexual harrasment (code for blow jobs) to stay away from white girls, “because they are bait.”

Posted by Svigor on Fri, 18 Nov 2005 19:43 | #

The report, which studied 13 countries, suggests that the ideal situation is for young immigrants to be proud of both their ethnic culture and new country.

Prof. John Berry of Queen’s University said immigrant youth can better handle discrimination…
I wonder why ethnic pride is important for young immigrants, but not for white natives? That Berry (or the G&M in his stead) is suggesting precisely that is the only logical conclusion, since not mentioning the subject is tacit approval of the reigning Zeitgeist which states, “white man, thou shalt not have ethnic pride (thou shalt not even have ethnicity).”

Again we’re presented the false dilemma, “Pepsi or Coke?” when what we really need is a cold glass of fresh water. We don’t need to wonder how to best kiss immigrant ass, we need to wonder how to stop the inflow and remove those present.

Posted by Martin Hutchinson on Sat, 19 Nov 2005 00:45 | #

Desmond, the 1790s Radicals were trying to overthrow the established order by force in the middle of a war that Britain did not start. As such, they were damn lucky not to be hanged.

We would probably all be better off if they had been hanged, since in they end they did succeed in destroying the existing social order, but that wasn’t the way Pitt operated. Beyond a facility with words and the inevitable coinidences of both being war leaders, I see no similarities between Pitt and Lincoln, a typical big-government leftist.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Sat, 19 Nov 2005 04:16 | #

Even if we accept your position, Martin, that the 1790s radicals were fortunate to escape further punishment, and that suspension of Habeas Corpus etc. was a moderate response, it still does not support the notion that pre-1830s Conservatism was sustained thru dispensation of freedoms. It is better characterised as heavy-handed. There was no evidence that the London Corresponding Society (LCS)allied with seditious elements of the French revolution. Pitt considered the Radical’s sympathy with the French revolution alone as evidence of treason. The only arms which had been discovered was an “arsenal” of pikeheads in the home of a disgruntled government spy.

Historian Jennifer Mori points out that “as an exercise in intimidation, the state trials were a success.” Those acquitted of treason served long sentences and were virtually bankrupted. “It was, of course, the bark which Pitt wanted,” as one historian has put it, “fear spies, watchful magistrates with undefined powers, [and] the occasional example.” In an effort that more closely resembled invoking the Patriot Act, Thomas Hardy and other members of the LCS were imprisoned for five months, before ultimately being found not guilty. According to some historians, the arrests for sedition in 1790 amounted to no more 200. The radicalsim of the 1790s, IMO, is overstated, and the tyrant Pitt, squashed a bug with a sledgehammer. It was an overreaction that served only to feel the reform fire.

Posted by Martin Hutchinson on Sat, 19 Nov 2005 15:16 | #

Excuse me, the Radicalism of the 1790s included an assassination attempt on George III in 1795, very nearly successful. It WAS in active correspondence with the French; for example Mary Wollestencraft spent most of 1793-6 living in Paris being feted by the Jacobins. It also involved a very nearly successful mutiny at Spithead which had it succeeded would have opened the way to French invasion (the Nore mutiny earlier in 1797 had been spontanous, the Spithead one was whipped up by civilian Radical agitators.)

Pitt’s actions in the 1790s were notably more moderate than those of Asquith or Wilson in WWI or Churchill or Roosevelt in WWII, far more moderate than Lincoln and incomparably more humane than the odious terrors on the other side of the channel. The repression of the 1790s is a nasty leftist myth, and should be dismissed as such—Habeas Corpus was suspended for two relatively short periods totaling less than 3 years. In summary, you were much better off being a Jacobin under Pitt than an Islamic Radical under George W. Bush.

As I said above, you can make a very good argument that hanging a few Whigs would have improved the long term quality of British government—Fox, Grey and later Russell would be top on my list. But Pitt and Liverpool didn’t do this; they valued the free society they lived in.